- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:519-DB WA No. 1199 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1199 OF 2024 (L-MW) BETWEEN: 1. MR. MOHAMMAD ASLAM S/O SAFDHAR ALI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S TARGET DETECTIVE AND SECURITY FORCE, NO.30-31, MUSLIM HOSTEL COMPLEX, CHETHANA HOTEL ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577006. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJESHA SHETTIGARA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:519-DB WA No. 1199 of 2024 BANGALORE-560009. 3. CHIGATERI DISTRICT HOSPITAL DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577006. REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT 4. THE LABOUR INSPECTOR 2ND CIRCLE DAVANAGERE HARIHARA TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORTY BUILDING, NOW BSNL, DAVANAGERE-577006. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZILLADALITHA BHAVAN, DAVANAGEE-577006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA.,) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.11549/2017 AND ISSUED ANY OTHER RELIEF DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:519-DB WA No. 1199 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) We have taken up this appeal in the revised call. No one is present to press this appeal either in the first call or in the revised call. 2. The appellant was a successful bidder in e-Procurement Tender Notification dated 26.12.2014 for the year 2015-16 for providing outsourced staff (non-clinical services) for the Chigateri District Hospital, Davangere. The appellant/petitioner being found eligible and successful in the e-Procurement tender was issued with the approval order by the Director, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru. In pursuance to the approval order, an agreement was entered between the parties on 19.06.2015 for supplying outsourced staff (non-clinical services) to the hospital. 3. The petitioner filed the writ petition alleging that the Director, Health and Family Welfare Department has refused to pay the reliever charges to weekly off to the outsourced staff provided by the appellant/petitioner in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:519-DB WA No. 1199 of 2024 pursuance to the agreement entered between the parties on 19.06.2015. The said claim of the appellant/petitioner was contested by the respondents. The respondents contended that the work order was issued to the petitioner fixing the monthly payment of Rs.11,18,875/- including service tax with effect from 23.06.2015 to 31.03.2016 however, the appellant/petitioner had submitted the bill over and above the work order and on scrutinizing the same, it was found that the claim made in excess to the amount mentioned in the work order was to the tune of Rs.5,25,159.81/-. The contention of the respondent was that the amount mentioned in the work order was including the reliever charges and therefore, the appellant/petitioner's claim was rejected by the respondent. 4. Learned Single Judge having considered the submissions and the relevant record was of the view that the claim of the petitioner was prima facie contrary to clause-27 of the agreement entered between the parties and even otherwise the entitlement of the appellant/petitioner for the said claim was a disputed question of fact and the writ Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition to decide a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:519-DB WA No. 1199 of 2024 disputed question of fact. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition was dismissed. 5. We have considered the impugned judgment. We do not find any error in the judgment impugned in the appeal and therefore, we dismiss the writ appeal. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1